Casey Langhans v. State of Missouri, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1030

Langhans pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery (Count I) and second-degree assault (Count II) under a plea agreement: ten years (Count I) with eligibility for release after a 120‑day DOC treatment program under §559.115, and a consecutive five years (Count II) with execution suspended.
Langhans was delivered to the Missouri DOC in June 2013 to complete the 120‑day program, completed it, and was released on supervised probation for Count I.
The State later moved to revoke probation; the court revoked probation and ordered execution of both sentences, and Langhans was returned to DOC on November 7, 2014.
Langhans filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion on February 9, 2015 alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to tell him his father recommended rejecting the plea.
The motion court denied the amended Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record conclusively refuted the claim; Langhans appealed arguing the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing.
The Court of Appeals instead addressed timeliness: it held that the 180‑day filing period for all known Rule 24.035 claims began at Langhans’s initial delivery to DOC in June 2013 and that his February 2015 motion was untimely and must be dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel	Langhans: the record does not conclusively refute his claim that plea counsel failed to communicate his father’s recommendation, so an evidentiary hearing was required	State: Langhans’s motion was untimely under Rule 24.035, so merits were barred and no hearing was required	Motions like Langhans’s are barred if not filed within 180 days of initial delivery to DOC on any count in a multi‑count judgment; Langhans’s motion was untimely and must be dismissed
Whether the 180‑day Rule 24.035 filing period restarts upon later deliveries to DOC for other consecutive sentences	Langhans: subsequent delivery (Nov 2014) triggered a fresh 180‑day period for Count II	State: the 180‑day period begins at initial delivery and covers all known claims for the multi‑count judgment	Following Swallow, the 180‑day period begins at initial delivery to DOC and covers all convictions/sentences in the judgment; it does not restart on later deliveries

Swallow v. State, 398 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2013) (holding initial delivery to DOC starts the 180‑day period for all known Rule 24.035 claims in a multi‑count judgment)
Roberts v. State, 407 S.W.3d 89 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (delivery to DOC for §559.115 treatment initiates Rule 24.035 timing)
Lenoir v. State, 475 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (Rule 24.035 is available to convicted felons in custody and timing is jurisdictional)
Pettry v. State, 345 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (timeliness under Rule 24.035 must be addressed before merits)
Unnerstall v. State, 53 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (untimely Rule 24.035 motions are barred and courts lack authority to reach merits)
Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (timing requirements under Rule 24.035 cannot be waived and must be considered by court)